Bandwidth limit gone = bad move

Perhaps I am about to doom myself to geek hell, but whatever. I have to say that the removal of the bandwidth limit is, perhaps, the worst thing Those-Who-Make-The-Rules have done since Dr. Midgley was here (that’s a backhanded compliment, by the way). Anyway, point is, I think removing the bandwidth limit was a terrible idea. Many of you will disagree with me for various (illegal cough cough) reasons, but I hope that by the end of this piece you will be able to see my point of view.

Long story short, Rose has a finite amount of bandwidth that is shared by all users of the network, from faculty to students to staff. Under the previous bandwidth-cap system, torrents and general usage (like watching streaming content) had to be throttled so people could sneak under their 48 hour limit. This meant that even when the network was at capacity, the peak traffic was more sporadic, allowing more users the full-throttle bandwidth experience. With no need to throttle torrents or limit streaming, traffic is constant, thereby perpetually hogging a chunk of available bandwidth and not providing the gaps that allow more users to communicate. It’s like a big bowl of M&Ms at a party. If torrenters and streamers have dixie cups and they all take a small scoop of the M&Ms, then plenty of candies are available to the other partygoers. But, if the same number of people are given buckets instead of dixie cups, then the number of candies left to partygoers is significantly smaller. Get my drift?

I could prattle on and on how it’s “not fair,” that so few ruin it for so many. How this is one more example of a few bad roses ruining the entire bouquet (awful pun intended). But I won’t. Instead, I propose the following argument.

A torrenter or streamer would argue: “If the bandwidth is there, and since I pay the same fee as everyone else, I have a right to use as much as I want.” To which, I would reply, “Yes, you pay the same as everyone else, so yes, you have as much privilege to it as I do. When your privilege to use the network for your personal reasons interferes with my right to use it for my academic reasons, then my right trumps your privilege.” The bandwidth limit kept the network abusers in-check so the rest of us could use the internet for work and legal pursuits.

The situation is bad (have you looked at the bandwidth usage monitor recently?). I’m not going to quote any numbers because, again, on paper, the situation doesn’t look nearly as dire. But, the feeling, the perception of pokiness, is disappointing for a school that unabashedly flaunts its flagship status.

Now, certainly you’re asking yourself, what could somebody possibly be downloading and uploading so much all of the time? Does the internet really contain that much free content? The answer, as I’m sure you’re well aware, is no. Torrents are, for the most part, 100% illegal. It is a highly sophisticated way to steal content simultaneously from many sources. I personally don’t care what an avid torrenter says – if a song, movie, or piece of software is on their computer that they didn’t pay for in some form, then that’s stealing, pure and simple.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with pirates because what people do on their own time is their own business. However, I imagine that Rose might have a problem with it. Let me propose the following hypothetical scenario: the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) discovers that Rose-Hulman houses an unusually high concentration of the internet-savvy and is a hot-spot for illegal pirating activity. Rose used to slip under their radar because network users were throttled low to evade the bandwidth limit. But now, with no cap, Rose suddenly becomes very visible to the RIAA who subsequently files suit. Because they’ve knowingly eliminated the one tool that kept piracy at bay (har har), the administration will be forced to walk the plank.

In Rose’s confining walls, we as students lose sight of the privileges that this place offers us. At other fine schools around the country, students have limits on the number of pages they can print from school printers, have the internet bottlenecked through online nannies, and have severe bandwidth restrictions. And nobody complains. Nobody sends a cathartic email to the system administrators demanding to be given unlimited throughput for their own selfish personal reasons. In fact, when I’ve spoken with students from other schools about our internet access, many of them are incredulous that the administration of the school would trust us enough to allow us that sort of access.

So, let me summarize the reasons you, IAIT, should bring back the bandwidth limit. (1) Perceptible slow-down unbecoming of a school that flaunts that it’s #1 (2) There’s no way that a policy that allows interference with academic endeavors (that is, unlimited torrenting and streaming that hogs bandwidth) is consistent with the goals of the Institute (to provide the best academic experience possible) (3) The RIAA. So, please, bring back the bandwidth limits. I close with this question to you IAIT, do you honestly believe that the same student body that sends you the deluge of immature hate-mail when they get 56k-ed can “use this shared resource responsibly?” I think we both know the answer to that question is a resounding “no.”